Umair Muhammad v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 842/2026, [2026] HKCA 1763

On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 4294

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 842 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 94 OF 2023)

_________________

BETWEEN

_________________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon Tam J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Background

1.On 7 August 2026, Deputy High Court Judge Sabrina Ho refused to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) concerning his non‑refoulement claim[1].  The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal against the said decision on 12 August 2026.

2.The applicant is a national of Pakistan.  He came to Hong Kong as a visitor on 14 March 2020 and subsequently overstayed.  He lodged his non-refoulement claim on 4 May 2020 on the basis that he will be harmed or killed by his girlfriend’s father and brothers because of religious difference if he is to return to Pakistan.

3.By a Notice of Decision dated 18 February 2021, the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.  His appeal was dismissed by the Board on 5 January 2023[2].

The judge’s decision

4.The applicant filed a Form 86 and an affirmation on 20 January 2023 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board.  His leave application was dismissed by the judge on 7 August 2026.  

Grounds of appeal

5.In his Notice of Appeal filed on 12 August 2026, the applicant stated that he wanted to apply for judicial review because he was not satisfied with the judge’s order of dismissal.

6.His contentions in his written submissions may be summarized as follows:

(1)  He disagrees with the decisions of the Director and the Board.  He does not think his case has been determined fairly;

(2)  Without knowing how the case was determined, it is not easy for the applicant to appeal against the decisions.  There should be a proper and fair mechanism that allows unrepresented litigants to understand more about their claims;

(3)  The applicant was never provided with proper legal and language assistance.  The Board’s determination has never been read to him in his language.  The failure in providing proper assistance is procedurally unfair;

(4)  The Board has unlawfully fettered its discretion by refusing the appeal on the grounds that they did not satisfy the requirements;

(5)  The Board was procedurally unfair in dealing with his appeal;

(6)  They did not sufficiently analyse his claim.  He still has a severe problem in his home country.  If he goes back to his country, he will be killed;

(7)  The Board’s decision in refusing his appeal is unreasonable or irrational in public law sense or is a result of procedural errors or unfairness;

(8)  The Board failed to meet the greater care and duty owed to a self-represented claimant;

(9)  The discriminatory act of the authorities towards non-refoulement claimants merely on the basis of quick disposal of non‑refoulement cases is unacceptable and detrimental to the spirit of judicial system;

(10)  There is no proper investigation in his case.  The police in his country would not help the claimants so they came to Hong Kong to save their own lives.

Analysis and disposition

7.The general principles regarding an appeal in a non‑refoulement case have been set out comprehensively by the Court of Appeal in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at §14.

8.The applicant’s complaints against the Director and the Board’s decisions were not raised in his leave application before the Court of First Instance.  An appeal is not the occasion for an applicant to introduce new grounds[3].

9.In any event, interpreter services were provided at the hearings at every stage.  The high standard of fairness required by law would not entail interpretation service being made available to an applicant all the time as he may desire: Re Gurung Sagar [2019] HKCA 658.  Besides, the applicant’s affirmation in support of the leave application, his notice of appeal as well as his written submissions were written in English.  This indicates that either the applicant is himself conversant with the English language or he has access to language assistance of his own if needed. 

10.As for the lack of legal representation, the Court of Appeal has repeatedly stated that an applicant of non-refoulement claim does not have an absolute right to free legal representation at all stages of the proceedings.  The applicant already had the benefit of legal representation in presenting his case to the Director. 

11.The rest of his arguments are just bare assertions without any evidence in support and sufficient particulars.  In particular, the applicant did not adduce any evidence to refute the Board’s finding that he has safe and reasonable relocation alternatives in Pakistan outside his home areas.  

12.For the above reasons, we found that the appeal is devoid of merit and dismiss it accordingly.

The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person

[1]  [2026] HKCFI 4294

[2]  The Board’s decision can be accessed via the following hyperlink:

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2023/HCAL000094_2023_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

[3]  Re Qadir Sher [2018] HKCA 160 at §11